tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (05/31/84)
Perhaps the subject line is somewhat skewed, but it seems that in all the fuss and feathers over the confiscation of the computer BB by the LAPD, no one has looked for a cogent reason that would require such action. I am not an attorney, but isn't it a requirement that when someone is charged with a crime that sufficient evidence must be presented for both an indictment and a conviction? So person A commits an offense by leaving a message on person B's computer bulletin board. If I, as the prosecuting attorney, want to establish the fact that such a crime was committed, what kind of evidence must I have? Right! I have to have proof that a message was transmitted and I must be able to present its content. How do I go about acquiring the custody of said evidence that is required to do my job? Maybe there are other ways, but certainly a very straightforward method is to obtain a warrant for the seizure of the computer BB system. I may not know exactly which portion of the system contains the real evidence, but at least I know I've got my arms around what is needed. I wouldn't like to have my computer system confiscated either, but I don't think I'd go around claiming that all Sysop's were going to be thrown in the slammer simply for what was placed on their bulletin board system. What say the legal beagles on the net? Ted Jardine -- TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper Boeing Computer Services Artificial Intelligence Center ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!tjj
cbspt002@abnjh.UUCP (06/01/84)
<confiscate this...> T Jardine writes: >Perhaps the subject line is somewhat skewed, but it seems that in all the >fuss and feathers over the confiscation of the computer BB by the LAPD, no >one has looked for a cogent reason that would require such action. I am not >an attorney, but isn't it a requirement that when someone is charged with a >crime that sufficient evidence must be presented for both an indictment and >a conviction? Sufficient evidence to indict is far different and less stringent than that need to convict (depending on the jurisdiction). A judge at an indictment is primarily concerned with whether the police had probable cause, etc., to arrest, whether what evidence has been collected has been done so properly (not stepping on anybody's civil rights, entrapment, etc.), and whether the state has/will have enough evidence to try the accused in a court in front of a jury without making total fools of itself. > So person A commits an offense by leaving a message on person >B's computer bulletin board. If I, as the prosecuting attorney, want to >establish the fact that such a crime was committed, what kind of evidence >must I have? Right! I have to have proof that a message was transmitted >and I must be able to present its content. How do I go about acquiring the >custody of said evidence that is required to do my job? For indictment - A printout from the BB or Pactel records should suffice. For trial- Why not just ask the Sysop to be a witness for the prosecution? That way no property is confiscated. Unless of course the Sysop is unwilling to testify, on which case his records and he can be subpoenead. If he has altered the record, the Sysop is guilt of perjury and deliberate destruction of evidence. You can get at the truth without confiscating anything. > Maybe there are >other ways, but certainly a very straightforward method is to obtain a warrant >for the seizure of the computer BB system. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are around , thankfully, to protect us from just such totalitarian 'straightforward methods'. >I may not know exactly which portion >of the system contains the real evidence, but at least I know I've got my arms >around what is needed. You quite probably have your arms around a genuine 'fruit from the poisined tree' or in this case the whole tree. Conspirators and Sysop walk out free men since this evidence gets tossed at the indictment. >I wouldn't like to have my computer system confiscated either, but I don't >think I'd go around claiming that all Sysop's were going to be thrown in the >slammer simply for what was placed on their bulletin board system. What say >the legal beagles on the net? I say we are dealing with a very new area for the law to be in. Do bulletin boards have 1st amendment rights? Newspapers do, but TV's only partly do. Also, does the LAPD really have jurisdiction in this matter? Seems to me phone crime is a federal rap. In which case the LAPD shouldn't have been involved in a confiscation. I also say more details are needed... Marc Kenig ["maybe I should have been a lawyer...?"] ATT-IS (consultant), S. Plainfield
bsafw@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (06/03/84)
I am in the process of developing a general BBS system running on our Unix system. I certainly don't want to have THIS system confiscated! The problem is that I can only access this system dialup, and that not too often due to usage. If someone posts something offensive, it may be a few days before I catch it. Likewise for system passwords, "Calling Cards", et cetera. Should this system be confiscated if I can't get to the reference and kill it before Ameritech (local Bell) catches it and gets our system confis- cated? Especially as a major local company depends on the system? I don't know if the situation would be considered differently for an (almost-) mainframe or not, but the Model 16 I'm using is essentially a desktop system, and might therefore be covered by the precedent set up by this issue. So I (and the superuser) have an interest in coming up with an alternative to straight confiscation, such as forcing the board offline temporarily until a hearing can be arranged (in this case, the BBS would be deactivated, so the corporate users could continue using the system remotely). Don't conclude that confiscation is the way to insure you have the evidence. (If it's a computer offense, there should be someone involved who understands computers, anyway -- in which case, confiscation of the floppies containing the message(s) (backups on here) would suffice.) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Allbery decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsafw "...he himself being one universe's prime MCI MAIL: 161-7070 example of utter, rambunctious free will!" USMail (core dump): 6504 Chestnut Road Independence, OH 44131
fran@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Frank Webb 3587) (06/04/84)
<for the itty bitty bit bucket> C'mon gang, we are forgetting one of the more important facts about the case. The BB in question maintained an UNDERGROUND board, where this kind of posting (credit card nos, etc.) may be presumed to have been either welcomed, or at least tolerated. The posting in question had been in the board for a month. These two facts were probably the reasons for the confiscation. The normal, well run BB would not be guilty of "aiding and abetting". The "Pirates Cove" sleaze operations are hereby put on notice. Whether the confiscation will stick, the courts will determine. I will scream like blue blazes if a well managed (read responsible) sysop gets stuck. I will not waste a lot of sympathy on this case. Frank Webb
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/05/84)
!ncoast!bsafw states that he is in the process of starting a BBS on his system and doesn't want it confiscated... "... especially as a major local company depends on the system..." I would mention that it's probably a VERY BAD idea to do this. I hate to tell you, but a great deal of the traffic will be kids with TRS-80's that like to crack. Having them run on a system with potentially sensitive stuff on it (not to mention the fact that most people on this earth really suck when it comes to picking good passwords) is going to cause trouble. I would want any BBS I had to be responsible for to be physically disconnected from anything vital. BTW, some people have asked if I (I know, some of you out there think I'm a fascist, don't you?) would want to be responsible for everything coming out of my system? Well, I do. No, I don't read everything, but if something inappropriate does come out of this system, I will find the person responsible and take appropriate measures. This is a little easier to do when you do a real accountability-based system (like requiring names, addresses and affiliations (and an accountable sponsor) on paper. Due to their anarchic nature, BBS's can't really do this. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (06/06/84)
[*************=8>:) (snort)] > C'mon gang, we are forgetting one of the more important facts about > the case. The BB in question maintained an UNDERGROUND board, where > this kind of posting (credit card nos, etc.) may be presumed to have > been either welcomed, or at least tolerated. The posting in question > had been in the board for a month. These two facts were probably the > reasons for the confiscation. The normal, well run BB would not be > guilty of "aiding and abetting". The "Pirates Cove" sleaze operations > are hereby put on notice. > Frank Webb Aren't you assuming rather a lot? You are taking a single word, "underground", and deciding that it must mean that this BBS was engaged in illegal activities. I'm not a sysop or a dedicated system gypsy, but I have logged on to dozens of BBS's over the last year or so, including some that have been characterized to me as "underground". And what did they offer? Mostly they were boards dedicated to passing around information on how to copy copy-protected disks. Some others were "sexually oriented", and seemed to mostly have dumb messages with lots of dirty words. Need I add that the above-mentioned activities are completely legal? Oh, I'm sure that the phone phreaks have their BBS's, too, but I don't think we have enough information to know if the BBS in question was that kind of operation. My impression (no hard facts) is that boards which feature sections for the phone phreaks put restricted access on those sections, in order to avoid the sort of thing that's happened to Mr. Tcimpidis (sp?). The (reported) fact that a phone company employee discovered illegal information on his board without needing any special authorization, suggests to me that he was running a legit operation, and was unaware of the illegal messages. I certainly have no reason to assume otherwise; do you? Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barry
msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (06/06/84)
From Frank Webb - > this kind of posting (credit card nos, etc.) may be presumed to have > been either welcomed, or at least tolerated. I thought France was the only country where guilt was presumed and innocence had to be proven. >Whether the confiscation will stick, the courts will determine. I >will scream like blue blazes if a well managed (read responsible) >sysop gets stuck. I will not waste a lot of sympathy on this case. How do you tell the difference between the "sleaze" operation and the well managed operation? More importantly what kind of law would you write to distinguish the two. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@qubix.UUCP, decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley.ARPA ...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!msc "I'm a citizen of the Universe, and a gentleman to boot!"
wrw@hou5h.UUCP (William Wetzel) (06/08/84)
I cannot help but see an analogy with the physical origins from which CBBs take their names, namely real bulletin boards, ya know, with pins, cork etc. Does this folly really mean that universities, supermarkets, businesses, etc. that provide public bulletin boards are liable for the consequences of the messages posted, liable for seizure of their bulletin board???? My (non-lawyer) mind just can't fathom that thinking. Bill Wetzel - WRW & Co.- Little Silver, N.J.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (06/12/84)
[] >How do you tell the difference between the "sleaze" operation and the well >managed operation? More importantly what kind of law would you write to >distinguish the two. Simple: "sleaze" operations are run by undesirables and "poor" people. (of course, nobody who owns a computer can be considered really poor, but all is relative?); well managed operations are run by the wealthy and those who have friends on the force. No law need be written to handle this situation, the police are able to make the distinction all by themselves. (Really officer, sir, I'm your friend, really, don't...AAAEEEEE E E e e e -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307